PDA

View Full Version : Spartacus' Abortion Thread - Which Side Won?



sonofnietzsche
April 30th, 2011, 07:58 AM
http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php/23542-Expanding-human-rights

The above link takes you to Spartacus' abortion thread. I found aspects of Spart's OP interesting and refreshing, and kudos to him for at least making an attempt to defend his opinions. Unfortunately for Spart, these aspects led to Spart's defeat. Read the thread and decide for yourself.

Spart attempted to defend his position without appealing to theology. In fact, he explicitly prohibited this tactic. I found this interesting and refreshing. However, this left Spart appealing to scientific facts, which led to Micain's reply:


Micain, post #35, Expanding human rights

Spartacus,

In my last post I said I was not going to respond to your slippery slope arguments because they are irrelevant to my attack on your OPs argument. And in the following post, you completely ignored the relevant part of my argument (relevant to an attack on your argument) for more slippery-slope arguments.

I will respond to such arguments AFTER you address the MAIN POINT of my argument. To really narrow it down:

Both of our positions are based on scientific fact and we are both subjectively determining the relevance of those facts when applying them to our differing positions on abortion.

Therefore your, as well as my, position on abortion is ultimately subjective. (emphasis his)

Either rebut this argument or concede it. If you do neither, then my argument stands as correct (until rebutted).

This is a devastating rejoinder, and one which teaches a valuable lesson. Many members, particularly Christians, have a habit of presenting their subjective personal opinions and feelings as if they were objectively true.

Spart never replied to Micain. He never rebutted Dio's argument (see post #34). Indeed, he fell completely silent in that thread.

The OP states that "the current laws that permit the unrestricted legal killing of humans in the uterus are wrong" and "unethical." While the OP certainly succeeds in forcefully conveying subjective, personal feelings and opinions on the matter, it utterly fails to do anymore than that.

UPDATE: It seems Spart has replied, so let's see where this thing goes.

Spartacus
April 30th, 2011, 10:25 AM
It was not my intention to concede anything. Thank you for reminding me about the thread. In the future, you don't need to start a thread here. Just please send me a PM. Thank you.:afro:

I find the opposing side is merely re-phrasing, and re-phrasing, their arguments and trying to show my definition of human is subjective -- like theirs -- when in fact my position is based on very clear and basic science, which is probably why the pro-abortion side finds it disturbing.

The pro-status-quo-legal-abortion-on-demand position relies on subjective definitions of what a human is -- and/or also requires one to promote a view that some humans deserve absolutely no protection whatsoever from being killed, especially by the human's biological mother.

The subjective standards they use are based only on: size, level of development, need for a special environment, and dependence on others.

There seems to me no agreement on the pro-abortion side as to exactly where these standards are, and certainly the most often cited "viability" argument offers only a target that is continually moving closer and closer to the conception event anyway.

And for the record, you might have found the argument "refreshing"; but it is the same argument I have been making here for years going back to when I first joined in 2004.

The pro-life side in the U.S. does a great dis-service to the 40million humans killed since Roe V. Wade, and those yet-to-be-killed when they make arguments based on religious beliefs. Religion has no place in the public discussion of this issue.

The Pro-life position is best founded on science and basic human decency.

I argue for man's continuing expansion of the definition of humans deserving the most basic of human rights -- to be able to live -- as the child of a woman who conceived me when she was barely 16, thankfully before Roe V. Wade or I too most likely would have been one of those 40 million victims.

sonofnietzsche
April 30th, 2011, 11:47 AM
It was not my intention to concede anything. Thank you for reminding me about the thread. In the future, you don't need to start a thread here. Just please send me a PM. Thank you.:afro:

It was not my intention to "remind" you about the thread. Nor did I mean any offense by starting the thread. I simply wanted to see what others thought about the debate. Since it was you who recently started the thread, I didn't consider that you had forgotten about the thread. Anyway, I updated the OP of this thread.



And for the record, you might have found the argument "refreshing"; but it is the same argument I have been making here for years going back to when I first joined in 2004.

I've never seen anyone on ODN do it before, but that may be because I joined in 2008 and am hardly the most active member around here.

mican333
April 30th, 2011, 11:51 AM
First off, I am not a moderator (I was one until recently so I'm pointing this out just to be clear that this is not coming from the moderators).

Since Spartacus is still debating the thread he clearly did not concede so no one has "won". Even if he had abandoned his thread for good, I would say that I had the last word in the debate but didn't officially "win" but I would stand by my statement that my last point stands until it's rebutted.

Likewise there is no need to debate the issues on that thread here so I will not respond to Spartacus' points here - I'll do it on his thread.

So IMO there is no need for this thread and perhaps it should be requested to the moderators that it be removed if Herman can't delete it himself. I guess that's Herman's call.

Spartacus
April 30th, 2011, 11:52 AM
The "human rights" angle might be new....but it is founded on the same precepts I have always argued here.

No offense taken at all.:afro:

Dionysus
April 30th, 2011, 01:11 PM
The motivation behind this thread is particularly interesting to me because it highlights again one of the more frustrating aspects of debate: lack of resolution.

In a thread, an unanswered post tends to be regarded as a concession on the part of the person who didn't answer, but it can't be known. I wonder if voting threads could be used for this? I also wonder if there perhaps a call for some sort of protocol where someone points to the obvious, like Spart alluded to above, where all that can be said has been said, and it's time to leave the "decision" as-it-were to the readers.

It's hard to know when to call it quits, and it's also hard to resist getting the "last word". Maybe we should brainstorm some ideas to answer this problem.

mican333
April 30th, 2011, 01:58 PM
In a thread, an unanswered post tends to be regarded as a concession on the part of the person who didn't answer, but it can't be known.

I don't personally have a problem with this. Sometimes there are actual concessions. I've conceded a debate or two and I have had opponents concede to me - as in actually say "I concede".

And sometimes someone loses interest in a debate and just leaves while still internally holding that they still consider their point of view to be correct. I've done this as well. I think in such a situation, whoever made the last argument can consider that his point "stands until rebutted", which is where I left my debate with Spartacus until he recently made another rebuttal. I didn't consider Spartacus to have conceded his position but if he tried to argue his point again without addressing my rebuttal (like in another thread), that would be a problem or at least poor etiquette (he didn't do that btw).

Likewise if one loses interest in a debate but doesn't concede, it might be polite to send the opponent a PM letting him know this is the case.


I wonder if voting threads could be used for this? I also wonder if there perhaps a call for some sort of protocol where someone points to the obvious, like Spart alluded to above, where all that can be said has been said, and it's time to leave the "decision" as-it-were to the readers.

I wouldn't necessarily like this as a matter of course. I think if one wants to start a thread where voting for the correct side is a rule of the thread, that's fine. But I could see people being inhibited in participating or starting debates if they think they might be subjected to this. And likewise the voting might fall on which side of the controversy one agrees with as opposed to who made the best argument. For instance, if Spartacus makes some great arguments for the pro-life side he could still lose the vote just because most who vote are pro-choice.

But again, if one makes it part of the thread that voting at some point will occur, that's fine. It's one of the rules of the thread (as well as the rule that one should vote on the strength of the arguments instead of agreement) and those who participate know that they will be subject to the vote.



It's hard to know when to call it quits, and it's also hard to resist getting the "last word". Maybe we should brainstorm some ideas to answer this problem.

Again, I don't think there's a big problem. Debates don't necessarily have to be resolved - it's the journey more than reaching a destination that counts. Usually my best resolved debates end with both of us finding the common ground we may have and politely to agree to disagree on what we can't resolve.

And I have had people just quit a debate when I apparently made a strong argument and while a concession would have been nice, I considered it a victory (and one of the worst offenders IMO is someone who's pretty significant at ODN but I won't name names).

Maybe what is needed is more an acknowledgment of what good debate etiquette is, especially if a debate has gone on for a while. If one is to leave a lengthy debate, they should do something other than quit with no further posts.

That's all I got for now...

Spartacus
April 30th, 2011, 02:14 PM
In the past we have seen a few very formal debates. I think they lacked attention because the subject matter did not have broad appeal, and some debaters would take a long time to respond.

I think it might be interesting if:

People could engage in a formal debate with a set number of posts. -- like 3 each and there would need to be a word or character limit to the size of the posts. There would also be a time limit....for example the debate would go for no more than 24 hours total.

It would also be necessary for there to be at least three impartial judges.

I would not want to see a "winner" declared but rather would like to see the judges post at the conclusion of the debate where the debaters did well, and where they need improvement.

After the six-post debate and the judges comments -- the thread would then be closed. I think it might be educational.

Ideally the judges would be mods also decide the topic and give the debaters 24 hours to prepare and no more.

This concept could even be expanded to teams....and I think that would be preferred frankly. Team mates could e-mail versions of a post back and forth, before one designated member posted it.

This whole thing could go on over a weekend.

Just an idea.

mican333
April 30th, 2011, 02:35 PM
I generally agree with where Spartacus is going.

I think judging and voting for a "winner" is fine in a specific type of thread.

And again, as far as regular threads I think conceding when appropriate is the polite thing to do and this perhaps should be emphasized but I wouldn't want to make a rule of it.

Sigfried
April 30th, 2011, 04:25 PM
I don't mind votes like this, so long as we simply pose the question and offer our opinion. Abortion isn't an easy topic to remain detatched and objective about though so I doubt any such poll would mean much.

Spart: I certainly didn't claim your definition of human was subjective, I thought it was wrong or poor. I actually think that the definition of what human is... is subjective which is why I don't think simply trying to form an objective alternative is a good idea.

Dionysus
April 30th, 2011, 06:54 PM
Good thoughts.

I have to say after considering Mican's comments that I tend to agree. Yes, it would be nice to have some sort of "closure", but in reality it comes down to the maturity of the participants to be wise enough to understand when enough is enough.

Well said, Mican. Just wanted to throw it out there, for whatever it might have been worth.

Spartacus
May 1st, 2011, 06:03 AM
Spart: I certainly didn't claim your definition of human was subjective, I thought it was wrong or poor. I actually think that the definition of what human is... is subjective which is why I don't think simply trying to form an objective alternative is a good idea.

Why is it pro-legal-abortion atheists are so adamant in demanding verifiable proof there is a God...something that can probably never be proven or dis-proven scientifically in this universe....yet don't demand the same standard of proof when determining a human is human.:idiot2:

A demand of certain proof for a metaphysical claim -- contrasted by the rationalization of subjective, personally-held beliefs replacing scientific proof for the physical...:idiot2:

The word for that is: hypocrisy

And that dear friends is why the pro-life side fails when it uses appeals to the spiritual on the abortion issue.

Sigfried
May 1st, 2011, 11:03 AM
Why is it pro-legal-abortion atheists are so adamant in demanding verifiable proof there is a God...something that can probably never be proven or dis-proven scientifically in this universe....yet don't demand the same standard of proof when determining a human is human.:idiot2:

I was trying not to debate the topic here only to clarify what I was doing in the debate. I voted for you BTW, because you made a case that required good work to try and refute. I wouldn't say you won, but you made a solid case for your position.

Not all pro-choice folks are atheists you know. Nor are all atheists pro-choice. Its a common pairing but not required. I only demand proof of God if you assert that God is real. I'm religiously pro-choice, worship whatever you like sir.

I think when it comes to questions of spirituality or ethics, everything is subjective and science can only offer information, not conclusions. There is no science that can tell us what is good or evil. Those are subjective decisions that humans make. I am pro-choice because it is a subjective choice that I do not wish to impose on others.


The word for that is: hypocrisy

Spart, it is more a lack of understanding of my position on your part. You have a very different world view where there are objective truths regarding human behavior. Since I have yet to see objective evidence of those objective truths, I disagree that they exist. I feel we are responsible for our own moral choices. Some I feel should be enforced in society, some I do not and in each case I have a series of reasons for my position.


And that dear friends is why the pro-life side fails when it uses appeals to the spiritual on the abortion issue.

I think the spiritual argument is valid for others that share your wold view, but if you are addressing a secular decision, you must make a secular case, and you did a fine job of that in the referenced debate. I'm not convinced, but you are not speaking my language there. You are trying to use science to determine an ethical standard and I think that is a misapplication of science which is a tool for making predictive statements about physical reality, not making moral judgement.

Spartacus
May 1st, 2011, 02:19 PM
I was trying not to debate the topic here only to clarify what I was doing in the debate. I voted for you BTW, because you made a case that required good work to try and refute. I wouldn't say you won, but you made a solid case for your position.

Not all pro-choice folks are atheists you know. Nor are all atheists pro-choice. Its a common pairing but not required. I only demand proof of God if you assert that God is real. I'm religiously pro-choice, worship whatever you like sir.

I think when it comes to questions of spirituality or ethics, everything is subjective and science can only offer information, not conclusions. There is no science that can tell us what is good or evil. Those are subjective decisions that humans make. I am pro-choice because it is a subjective choice that I do not wish to impose on others.



Spart, it is more a lack of understanding of my position on your part. You have a very different world view where there are objective truths regarding human behavior. Since I have yet to see objective evidence of those objective truths, I disagree that they exist. I feel we are responsible for our own moral choices. Some I feel should be enforced in society, some I do not and in each case I have a series of reasons for my position.



I think the spiritual argument is valid for others that share your wold view, but if you are addressing a secular decision, you must make a secular case, and you did a fine job of that in the referenced debate. I'm not convinced, but you are not speaking my language there. You are trying to use science to determine an ethical standard and I think that is a misapplication of science which is a tool for making predictive statements about physical reality, not making moral judgement.

I don't want to debate it here either -- but I think ths is a good place to discuss and debate the debate...

All I am arguing for is an increase in the legal definition of humans able to receive the most basic of protection under the law. This increasing definition is a trend we have seen in the West and the United States throughout all of its history.

Determining who is and is not human is not a subjective matter. The only thing that is subjective and constantly changing, is what protections are extended to which members of the human species.

I really wish someone from the pro-legal-abortion-on-demand side would have the honesty to comes out and state:

"Yes, humans are humans from conception -- but we need to be allowed to legally continue to kill some humans, especially the most defenseless ones, and here is why."

But as many reading this know -- what will follow is essentially the "for the good of the species" argument for eugenics.

Dionysus
May 1st, 2011, 02:46 PM
"Yes, humans are humans from conception -- but we need to be allowed to legally continue to kill some humans, especially the most defenseless ones, and here is why."The bolded is your central statement. If you advocate killing humans under ANY circumstances, then you ARE saying this. If you advocate killing other humans in war, then you advocate legally killing some humans.

MindTrap028
May 1st, 2011, 02:51 PM
The bolded is your central statement. If you advocate killing humans under ANY circumstances, then you ARE saying this. If you advocate killing other humans in war, then you advocate legally killing some humans.
Yes, that is what we say.
and the point continues, that the "reasons" for killing on the pro-abortion side, are unacceptable reasons. IE size, level of development, environment, dependency, are not legit reasons to kill someone.

War, is a legit reason.
Criminal activity such as murder...is a legit reason.

Dionysus
May 1st, 2011, 03:00 PM
Yes, that is what we say.Right, and BECAUSE you say it, it's a poor foundation for the argument itself. It says that we SHOULDN'T be allowed to perform abortions because we SHOULDN'T kill humans for any reason.

Spartacus
May 1st, 2011, 04:09 PM
Right, and BECAUSE you say it, it's a poor foundation for the argument itself. It says that we SHOULDN'T be allowed to perform abortions because we SHOULDN'T kill humans for any reason.

IN an ideal world -- no one should die in a war or be condemned to death IMO.

Unfortunately, the world is not ideal.

One must pick and choose one's battles though and for me, to prevent the attitudes and laws that allowed 40 million Americans to be legally killed since Roe V. Wade is a battle worth fighting.:afro:

Dionysus
May 1st, 2011, 04:14 PM
IN an ideal world -- no one should die in a war or be condemned to death IMO.

Unfortunately, the world is not ideal.

One must pick and choose one's battles though and for me, to prevent the attitudes and laws that allowed 40 million Americans to be legally killed since Roe V. Wade is a battle worth fighting.:afro:Well, that's all fine and well, but it still doesn't improve the strength of your proposed underlying principle. Again, if you make ANY exceptions to the claim "we shouldn't kill humans", then you can't forward "we shouldn't kill humans" as a supporting principle.

Sigfried
May 1st, 2011, 05:07 PM
I really wish someone from the pro-legal-abortion-on-demand side would have the honesty to comes out and state:

"Yes, humans are humans from conception -- but we need to be allowed to legally continue to kill some humans, especially the most defenseless ones, and here is why."

Ya, cause that would make it really easy for you to blow them out of the water. But sadly for you, that is not what anyone honestly feels on the pro-choice side of the debate.

I can understand that you would love to tilt at some straw men, but it ain't going to happen.

MindTrap028
May 1st, 2011, 06:39 PM
Right, and BECAUSE you say it, it's a poor foundation for the argument itself. It says that we SHOULDN'T be allowed to perform abortions because we SHOULDN'T kill humans for any reason.
No pro-life person argues that.
We recognize that people can legitimately have rights denied them.
But they (reasons) MUST be legitimized.

So you are created with certain rights, which must have valid reasons to deny.

The reasons for abortion are enumerated as Size, level of development, environment, dependency.
We argue that those are not valid reasons to deny what is already there.. a right to life.

It is a straw-man to say that we argue "because everyone starts with certain rights, that those rights can not be revoked".

Also, it does not follow from the fact that people start with rights, that we shouldn't revoke them given certain reasons.

Dionysus
May 1st, 2011, 06:54 PM
No pro-life person argues that.You're missing the point, amigo. Hang with me here, because I'm not making a pro-choice argument.

Spart said in his thread that, as an underlying principle, "The right to not be killed [...] needs to be extended to all humans..."

"All" is an absolute term. Because it is an absolute term, NO humans can be excluded from the principle. NONE.

I'm not saying that he hasn't made a case for the pro-life side. I think he has. But because this principle is written in absolute terms, it is crippling to his position, assuming he finds killing some humans in some circumstances to be acceptable. This isn't a pro-choice argument on my part. It's a purely logical objection coming from someone who happens to be pro-choice. You need to put aside your knowledge of that in order to understand my objection. I know you think I'm making a pro-choice argument, but I'm not, but you believing I am is skewing your viewpoint here.

So if you don't "argue that", then that's fine; you should hold the same objection to that particular line in the opening post. If the right not to be killed should be extended to ALL humans, then it needs to be extended to ALL humans. It's dead simple.

MindTrap028
May 1st, 2011, 07:26 PM
So if you don't "argue that", then that's fine; you should hold the same objection to that particular line in the opening post. If the right not to be killed should be extended to ALL humans, then it needs to be extended to ALL humans. It's dead simple.
:afro:

You are correct.
I withdraw/ concede my contention.

any idea how to kill a dead guy?

Dionysus
May 1st, 2011, 07:31 PM
any idea how to kill a dead guy?Double-tap, son. ;)

I'm not sure about that one. That bit of the exchange with Mican and Spart is getting a little weird. I'm staying out of it because I don't think I understand how it came to that.

MindTrap028
May 1st, 2011, 07:35 PM
Double-tap, son.
O.. how could I forget rule #2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmA2WYyw-_A)

Spartacus
May 3rd, 2011, 08:57 AM
You're missing the point, amigo. Hang with me here, because I'm not making a pro-choice argument.

Spart said in his thread that, as an underlying principle, "The right to not be killed [...] needs to be extended to all humans..."

"All" is an absolute term. Because it is an absolute term, NO humans can be excluded from the principle. NONE.

I'm not saying that he hasn't made a case for the pro-life side. I think he has. But because this principle is written in absolute terms, it is crippling to his position, assuming he finds killing some humans in some circumstances to be acceptable. This isn't a pro-choice argument on my part. It's a purely logical objection coming from someone who happens to be pro-choice. You need to put aside your knowledge of that in order to understand my objection. I know you think I'm making a pro-choice argument, but I'm not, but you believing I am is skewing your viewpoint here.

So if you don't "argue that", then that's fine; you should hold the same objection to that particular line in the opening post. If the right not to be killed should be extended to ALL humans, then it needs to be extended to ALL humans. It's dead simple.

DIO...

There is a distinct difference between someone tragically, killing a human either unintentionally, or lawfully under extreme circumstances -- and legally allowing a human to kill another human intentionally and willfully for no reason whatever or any reason whatever.

Do you agree with that?

AND BTW -- I put a flag up on Mican's attempt to bring Zombieland into the debate.

Dionysus
May 3rd, 2011, 09:03 AM
DIO...

There is a distinct difference between someone tragically, killing a human either unintentionally, or lawfully under extreme circumstances -- and legally allowing a human to kill another human intentionally and willfully for no reason whatever or any reason whatever.

Do you agree with that?Of course I do. Do you understand that when you SAY "all" it can only MEAN "all"?

Spartacus
May 3rd, 2011, 09:03 AM
Ya, cause that would make it really easy for you to blow them out of the water. But sadly for you, that is not what anyone honestly feels on the pro-choice side of the debate.

I can understand that you would love to tilt at some straw men, but it ain't going to happen.

Strawman?

Please help me understand that what I wrote is a strawman. I am not being cute here. I really don't see how what I wrote is a strawman. To me that is the founding principal on which legal-abortion rests: that some humans can and should be killed with impunity. Our society permits laws that allow us to legally some humans with little or even no reason.

At its core -- how is it any different than the ethics proposed by people who support eugenics?

The only difference is eugenics purported to kill some humans in order to better the species. Pro-legal-abortion have merely restricted this principal to giving the biological mother the right to kill her offspring, if she "feels" she must.

So other than a little scaling back -- how are the two sides any different ethically?

FYI -- I might as the OP writer in the "Expanding Human Rights" thread use some quotes from here in that thread....

Dionysus
May 3rd, 2011, 09:16 AM
Of course I do. Do you understand that when you SAY "all" it can only MEAN "all"?We posting at the same time. Didn't want you to miss this.

Spartacus
May 3rd, 2011, 09:40 AM
We posting at the same time. Didn't want you to miss this.


Of course.

Although the definition of human is absolute, under certain circumstances the rights of one human, including the right to not be killed, can ethically and legally be forfeit.

The key issue is -- how high is that bar?

Our side argues for a very high bar.

The opposing side argues for a low bar -- or even no bar whatsoever when the killing of an offspring by the biological mother is involved. Ethically, their argument is no different than the parent(s) of a child just born choosing to kill that child for their own reasons, whatever those might be.

mican333
May 3rd, 2011, 09:48 AM
The opposing side argues for a low bar -- or even no bar whatsoever when the killing of an offspring by the biological mother is involved. Ethically, their argument is no different than the parent(s) of a child just born choosing to kill that child for their own reasons, whatever those might be.

I think the general bar for pro-choice is viability - pro-choicers generally are fine with severe restrictions on late term abortion (illegal expect for certain unusual circumstances).

So no, they would not accept killing a born baby. That's ridiculous.

Dionysus
May 3rd, 2011, 09:52 AM
Although the definition of human is absolute, under certain circumstances the rights of one human, including the right to not be killed, can ethically and legally be forfeit.And if we accept that this is true, then it completely removes "The right to not be killed [...] needs to be extended to all humans..." as a valid principle for consideration, because it makes an exception where none are acceptable.

If you'll only acknowledge this clearly, conspicuously, blindingly, glaringly, devastatingly obvious fact, I'll move to the next point. But because this is a key claim in your OP, and it continues to be ignored when I bring it up, I will continue pushing it.

Spartacus
May 3rd, 2011, 09:55 AM
And if we accept that this is true, then it completely removes "The right to not be killed [...] needs to be extended to all humans..." as a valid principle for consideration, because it makes an exception where none are acceptable.

If you'll only acknowledge this clearly, conspicuously, blindingly, glaringly, devastatingly obvious fact, I'll move to the next point. But because this is a key claim in your OP, and it continues to be ignored when I bring it up, I will continue pushing it.

Have you seen me to argue for an absolute application regardless of any conditions or circumstances? I don't think so. There are always exceptions.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Dionysus
May 3rd, 2011, 10:02 AM
Have you seen me to argue for an absolute application regardless of any conditions or circumstances? I don't think so.Think again.

From your OP:


RESOLVED: The current laws that permit the unrestricted legal killing of humans in the uterus are wrong, out of date, unethical and need to be changed. The right to not be killed is the most basic of all human rights and needs to be extended to all humans regardless of their: size, location, level of development, need for special environment, and dependency on other in the U.S..


There are always exceptions.Agreed. That's why you can't say "X" must apply to "all" within a group if "X" DOESN'T apply to "all" within a group.


Please correct me if I am wrong.Done.

What you need to do is either agree that the right to not be killed does NOT apply to "all" humans, in which case we abandon that principle. Or you need to stick with the idea that it DOES apply to "all" and go on to support that there are NO circumstances that will affect the principle.

Sigfried
May 3rd, 2011, 11:21 AM
Strawman?

Please help me understand that what I wrote is a strawman.

I cannot because you feel that a couple of cells constitutes a human being as much as a walking talking living breathing person does. If you equate those two things then you come to one conclusion, if you do not equate them you come to another.


At its core -- how is it any different than the ethics proposed by people who support eugenics?


Because of the qualitative differences between a person and a fetus.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 PM ----------


Have you seen me to argue for an absolute application regardless of any conditions or circumstances? I don't think so. There are always exceptions.

Then if that is the case your argument is no different than those of someone supporting eugenics. At least according to the argument you are offering. You merely quibble about what test must be met to end human life.

This effort lump folks into a camp neither of us agrees with is not productive to positions that are heavily reasoned and considered. It evades our actual arguments to create a straw man: Eugenics are bad, thus your position is bad.

It's a cheap and easy tactic but it won't be effective because my position is not one that supports eugenics.